socialist or communist?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Capitalism could be democratic if all people within a capitalist society were conscious of the implications of capitalism and were eager to accept them.

But given the inherit powers of the ruling classes in capitalism, once it was embraced(democratically or not) there would cease to be any real democracy left as true to the word democracy requires economic democracy as well as political democracy.

oligarch wrote:

But given the inherit powers of the ruling classes in capitalism, once it was embraced(democratically or not) there would cease to be any real democracy left as true to the word democracy requires economic democracy as well as political democracy.

The thing is that, by democratically embracing capitalism, people would aswell embrace its implications, that is, ceding power to the capital and those who control it more effectively.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The thing is that, by democratically embracing capitalism, people would aswell embrace its implications, that is, ceding power to the capital and those who control it more effectively.

This can be done democratically within the framework of a direct democracy but once it has been done, regardless of how much popular support it has, the democracy that brought it into existence ceases to exist.

oligarch wrote:

This can be done democratically within the framework of a direct democracy but once it has been done, regardless of how much popular support it has, the democracy that brought it into existence ceases to exist.

While that democracy dies, the system is democratically supported.

democracy has flaws.
If your rich or have done something heroic 50years ago will gurantee you as one of the top canda daetes in america becuse the pepole don't care about your polacies.
you could not get away with that in europe.
but even ther only 60% og the population votes that's not democracy!

democracy sounds great as does comunism, but the problem with democracy is that if you ever wanna change gov. you need wait a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG time.

anyways its all explained with cows.

in a democratic system. you care for the cows and everyone votes who deserves the milk.

in a comunistic society everyone cares for the cows and everyone shares the milk

in a socialist. the gov owns the cows and you take only as much milk as you need

and in toltarianism you care for the cows, the gov kills you and takes the milk and cow

and finnally. in a capalistic you care for the cows AND THE GOV TAKES HALF OR A PERCENTAGE

( I COULD HAVE GOTTEN THEESE MIXED UP

ychoosedemocracy wrote:

democracy sounds great as does comunism, but the problem with democracy is that if you ever wanna change gov. you need wait a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG time.

anyways its all explained with cows.

in a democratic system. you care for the cows and everyone votes who deserves the milk.

in a comunistic society everyone cares for the cows and everyone shares the milk

in a socialist. the gov owns the cows and you take only as much milk as you need

and in toltarianism you care for the cows, the gov kills you and takes the milk and cow

and finnally. in a capalistic you care for the cows AND THE GOV TAKES HALF OR A PERCENTAGE

( I COULD HAVE GOTTEN THEESE MIXED UP

Yay! COWS!!!

mattabesta wrote:

democracy has flaws.
If your rich or have done something heroic 50years ago will gurantee you as one of the top canda daetes in america becuse the pepole don't care about your polacies.
you could not get away with that in europe.
but even ther only 60% og the population votes that's not democracy!

Democracy is not capitalism. Democracy can be any system, even fascism can be to some extent democratic. The thing is that a broad majourity of population accepts the system and its implications after knowing how it works and what it brings. That's democracy.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The thing is that a broad majourity of population accepts the system and its implications after knowing how it works and what it brings. That's democracy.

There can not be true democracy under capitalism because it provides neither political or economic equality and democracy requires both. Even if the vast majority of people accept an authoritarian dictatorship, it is still not a democracy; unless the power of the state is vest4ed solely in the people by definition, it is not democracy.

oligarch wrote:

There can not be true democracy under capitalism because it provides neither political or economic equality and democracy requires both. Even if the vast majority of people accept an authoritarian dictatorship, it is still not a democracy; unless the power of the state is vest4ed solely in the people by definition, it is not democracy.

Supposing the vast majourity of people supposrted an autoritharian dictatorship, or capitalism, knwing the implications of doing so, they base their democracy either on the premise that political and economical inequalty are correct and so are tits implications (in the case of capitalism), or on the premise that the elected dictatorship, regardless of its policies, is always acting according to the will of people.

While democracy itself dies, the non-democratic system elected by people remains a "democratic decision" and thus remains a democratic system, for the simple fact that popular will determined that such a system be the system to follow.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

While democracy itself dies, the non-democratic system elected by people remains a "democratic decision" and thus remains a democratic system, for the simple fact that popular will determined that such a system be the system to follow.

Even if such a system is willed into existence by the people, it will by definition not take actions according to the will of the people and it is therefore not a democracy even if it is the people's will that the will of the people not be taken into account.

oligarch wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

While democracy itself dies, the non-democratic system elected by people remains a "democratic decision" and thus remains a democratic system, for the simple fact that popular will determined that such a system be the system to follow.

Even if such a system is willed into existence by the people, it will by definition not take actions according to the will of the people and it is therefore not a democracy even if it is the people's will that the will of the people not be taken into account.

That sir is a paradox

ilych wrote:

That sir is a paradox

Crap, you're right.

oligarch wrote:

ilych wrote:

That sir is a paradox

Crap, you're right.

you just got served

oligarch wrote:

Even if such a system is willed into existence by the people, it will by definition not take actions according to the will of the people and it is therefore not a democracy even if it is the people's will that the will of the people not be taken into account.

Just as ilych points out, your example is a paradox.

Let me summarize my point: People can democratically take the decision not to make further democratic decisions. They would recognize the system they chose as representative of their will since the moment they chose it. Any further complaint by people about that system would merely be an act of incongruence.

On those grounds for a capitalism to be democratic, workers would have to acknowledge their position as a lower class and accept the fact that it will be extremely hard to impossible to most of them to advance to a higher social stature, they'd have to accept the implications of not following capitalist law and they would have to acknowledge higher classes, regardless of everything, as superior to them. However, capitalism eventualy becomes a mere "moneycracy" in which the ultimate ruler is money itself, throwing all people into some srt of demi-regulated anarcho-capitalism. So people in a democratic capitalism should acknowledge that the ultimate rulers of their whole system are those who have managed to effectively manage capital without getting obstaculized.
Since anyone could aspire to achieve this, we could say that defacto a democratic capitalism is the democratically accepted condition in which those able to amass fortune rule over those with lesser fortunes.

A democratic dictatorship is a dictatorship which, stablished by people, has all its policies backed by people. My concept for the buildup of a communist society employs a similar principle: the dictatorship and society are both reigned by communist law and there exists a complex direct democracy mechanism for people's demands to be heard and put into action by the given dictatorship being the enaction of people's will one of the basis of communist law. However, this is just a very shallow and short summary of that whole concept.

A democratic fascism, for example, is in my view "the perfect capitalism" or probably even some kind of "democratically accepted slavery" (sounds horrible huh?). Workers acknowledge their inferiority and accept to have upper classes as their masters which, among other rights, have the right to supress by force any demonstration of indicipline by their workers which at the same time, after being repressed would have to acknowledge they actually did wrong and are sorry not to have completely accepted the demands of their bosses and acknowledge coercion by force as a loable measure to push them to follow the disciplinary demands their bosses require. - This wether workable or not, is just an example of how even something as fascism or slavery could actually be democratic. Either way this is mere hypotesis. I personally think this is a quite improbable scenary, yet, not completely impossible.

Very good post Zealot, even though democratic dictatorship sounds like a paradox. I'd say democracy is nothing more than the dictatorship of the majority.

It is interesting how many countries which have one-party elections call themselves democratic, as they are still electing their officials, but they just have a smaller selection from which to choose. But that's not the point of a democracy, now is it?

but even if it is a one party election, atleast you are mnot controled by a monarchy or one dictator who decides everything.

1 democracy and is idea always beats socialism in most peoples minds

2 democracy is slow

3 while everyhting owned the the people sounds great, it has never really worked. i mean look at china, north korea, and cuba and sort of belarus.

they all say they are communistic but they all either use mioney or have a crazy short dictator.




also zealeot; that is a very long summary LOL

ychoosedemocracy wrote:

but even if it is a one party election, atleast you are mnot controled by a monarchy or one dictator who decides everything.

1 democracy and is idea always beats socialism in most peoples minds

2 democracy is slow

3 while everyhting owned the the people sounds great, it has never really worked. i mean look at china, north korea, and cuba and sort of belarus.

they all say they are communistic but they all either use mioney or have a crazy short dictator.




also zealeot; that is a very long summary LOL

No, none of those contries ever had common ownership as it has never been attemptted by any country.

And Zealot, though all of the systems you mentioned are certainly democratic they are not actual democracies unless the government willingly dissolves itself or does not offer significant resistance to revolution when and if the people no longer want it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

democracy has flaws.
If your rich or have done something heroic 50years ago will gurantee you as one of the top canda daetes in america becuse the pepole don't care about your polacies.
you could not get away with that in europe.
but even ther only 60% og the population votes that's not democracy!

Democracy is not capitalism. Democracy can be any system, even fascism can be to some extent democratic. The thing is that a broad majourity of population accepts the system and its implications after knowing how it works and what it brings. That's democracy.

I know I'm only pointing out that even those how think they are informed truly arn't
I'm stupid and so are you.
Democracy asumes evryone knows what theyer candidate is saying
he maybe saying shit you don't like but he's keeping a low profile on it not bringing it up or shit like that.

I've been playing san andreas for 4hours
I'm messed up in my brains.

oligarch wrote:

And Zealot, though all of the systems you mentioned are certainly democratic they are not actual democracies unless the government willingly dissolves itself or does not offer significant resistance to revolution when and if the people no longer want it.

Well, for a capitalism to be democratic people would have to never want it. However.... new generations may want to change it and it will depend on those new generations to implement the substitute.

Anyway that's why I'm convinced merely in my "democratic dictatorship" concept. A dictatorship focused towards the democratization and education of people, on the preparation of people to be democratic. Through objectiveness.

Socialism has higher values and morals.

kahnsguard wrote:

Socialism has higher values and morals.

how so?

yeah i never really got the hight morals thing please explain

kahnsguard wrote:

Socialism has higher values and morals.

That makes no sense.